Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation, 16707-16709 [2013-06107]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2013 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 2943]
Certain Electronic Devices Having
Placeshifting or Display Replication
Functionality and Products Containing
Same; Notice of Receipt of Complaint;
Solicitation of Comments Relating to
the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has received a complaint
entitled Certain Electronic Devices
Having Placeshifting or Display
Replication Functionality and Products
Containing Same; DN 2943; the
Commission is soliciting comments on
any public interest issues raised by the
complaint or complainant’s filing under
section 210.8(b) of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.8(b)).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa
R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the
Commission, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2000. The public version of the
complaint can be accessed on the
Commission’s Electronic Document
Information System (EDIS) at EDIS. 1
and will be available for inspection
during official business hours (8:45 a.m.
to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server at United
States International Trade Commission
(USITC) at USITC. 2 The public record
for this investigation may be viewed on
the Commission’s Electronic Document
Information System (EDIS) at EDIS. 3
Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission has received a complaint
and a submission pursuant to section
210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure filed on behalf
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
1 Electronic Document Information System
(EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.
2 United States International Trade Commission
(USITC): https://edis.usitc.gov.
3 Electronic Document Information System
(EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.
VerDate Mar<14>2013
15:16 Mar 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
of Sling Media, Inc. on March 12, 2013.
The complaint alleges violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain electronic
devices having placeshifting or display
replication functionality and products
containing same. The complaint names
as respondents Belkin International, Inc.
of CA; Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. of CA;
and C2 Microsystems, Inc. of CA.
Proposed respondents, other
interested parties, and members of the
public are invited to file comments, not
to exceed five (5) pages in length,
inclusive of attachments, on any public
interest issues raised by the complaint
or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments
should address whether issuance of the
relief specifically requested by the
complainant in this investigation would
affect the public health and welfare in
the United States, competitive
conditions in the United States
economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the
United States, or United States
consumers.
In particular, the Commission is
interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles
potentially subject to the requested
remedial orders are used in the United
States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety,
or welfare concerns in the United States
relating to the requested remedial
orders;
(iii) identify like or directly
competitive articles that complainant,
its licensees, or third parties make in the
United States which could replace the
subject articles if they were to be
excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant,
complainant’s licensees, and/or third
party suppliers have the capacity to
replace the volume of articles
potentially subject to the requested
exclusion order and/or a cease and
desist order within a commercially
reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested
remedial orders would impact United
States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no
later than by close of business, eight
calendar days after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. There will be further
opportunities for comment on the
public interest after the issuance of any
final initial determination in this
investigation.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16707
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2943’’)
in a prominent place on the cover page
and/or the first page. (See Handbook for
Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic
Filing Procedures. 4) Persons with
questions regarding filing should
contact the Secretary (202–205–2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. All nonconfidential
written submissions will be available for
public inspection at the Office of the
Secretary and on EDIS. 5
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 13, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–06138 Filed 3–15–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–807]
Certain Digital Photo Frames and
Image Display Devices and
Components Thereof; Issuance of a
Limited Exclusion Order and Cease
and Desist Orders; Termination of
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has terminated the abovecaptioned investigation under section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and has issued a limited
SUMMARY:
4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures:
https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/
rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
5 Electronic Document Information System
(EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
16708
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2013 / Notices
exclusion order directed against
infringing products of the following
respondents previously found in
default: Nextar Inc. (‘‘Nextar’’) of La
Verne, California; WinAccord Ltd. of
Taipei, Taiwan and WinAccord U.S.A.,
Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively,
‘‘the WinAccord respondents’’); Aiptek
International Inc. (‘‘Aiptek’’) of
Hsinchu, Taiwan; and Pandigital, Inc.
(‘‘Pandigital’’) of Dublin, California
(collectively, ‘‘the defaulting
respondents’’). The Commission has
also issued cease and desist orders
directed against these defaulting
respondents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on September 27, 2011, based on a
complaint filed by Technology
Properties Limited, LLC (‘‘TPL’’) of
Cupertino, California. 76 FR 59737–38.
The complaint alleged a violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain digital photo frames and image
display devices and components thereof
by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623
(‘‘the ’623 patent’’); 7,162,549;
7,295,443; and 7,522,424. The
complaint further alleged the existence
of a domestic industry. The
Commission’s notice of investigation
named twenty respondents including
Nextar; the WinAccord respondents;
Aiptek; Pandigital; Action Electronics
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Action’’) of Taoyuan County,
Taiwan; Aluratek, Inc. (‘‘Aluratek’’) of
Tustin, California; Audiovox
VerDate Mar<14>2013
15:16 Mar 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
Corporation (‘‘Audiovox’’) of Happauge,
New York; CEIVA Logic, Inc. (‘‘CEIVA’’)
of Burbank, California; Circus World
Displays Ltd. (‘‘Circus’’) of Niagra Falls,
Canada; Coby Electronics Corporation
(‘‘Coby’’) of Lake Success, New York;
Curtis International, Ltd. (‘‘Curtis’’) of
Ontario, Canada; Digital Spectrum
Solutions, Inc. (‘‘Digital Spectrum’’) of
Irvine, California; Eastman Kodak
Company (‘‘Eastman Kodak’’) of
Rochester, New York; Mustek Systems,
Inc. (‘‘Mustek’’) of Hsinchu Taiwan;
Royal Consumer Information Products,
Inc. (‘‘Royal Consumer’’) of Somerset,
New Jersey and Sony Corporation of
Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of
America of New York, New York
(collectively, ‘‘the Sony respondents’’);
Transcend Information, Inc.
(‘‘Transcend’’) of Taipei, Taiwan; and
Viewsonic Corporation (‘‘Viewsonic’’) of
Walnut, California. The complaint and
notice of investigation were served on
all respondents. See Notice of
Investigation, Certificate of Service
(Sept. 22, 2011) (EDIS Document
459720). No Commission investigative
attorney participated in the
investigation.
On November 10 and 30, 2011,
respectively, the Commission
determined not to review initial
determinations (‘‘IDs’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) terminating the investigation as
to Coby and Aluratek based on
settlement agreements. On December 21,
2011, the Commission determined not
to review an ID terminating the
investigation as to Circus based on a
settlement agreement. On January 25,
2012, the Commission determined not
to review an ID terminating the
investigation as to Curtis based on a
settlement agreement. On February 10
and 23, 2012, respectively, the
Commission determined not to review
IDs terminating the investigation as to
Royal Consumer and Viewsonic based
on settlement agreements. On March 16,
2012, the Commission determined not
to review an ID terminating the
investigation as to CEIVA based on a
settlement agreement. On April 11,
2012, the Commission determined not
to review IDs terminating the
investigation as to Eastman Kodak and
Mustek, respectively, based on consent
order stipulations. On May 24, 2012, the
Commission determined not to review
an ID terminating the investigation as to
Audiovox based on a settlement
agreement. Also, on May 24 and 29,
2012, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs
terminating the investigation as to the
’623 patent with respect to Pandigital,
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and terminating Digital Spectrum, based
on consent order stipulations. On June
20, 2012, the Commission determined
not to review an ID terminating the
investigation as to Action based on a
consent order stipulation. On July 26,
2012, the Commission determined not
to review an ID terminating the
investigation as to Transcend based on
a consent order stipulation. On October
3, 2012, the Commission determined not
to review an ID terminating the
investigation as to the Sony respondents
based on a consent order stipulation.
On December 6 and 22, 2011,
respectively, the ALJ issued IDs finding
Nextar, the WinAccord respondents,
and Aiptek in default, pursuant to 19
CFR 210.16, because these respondents
did not respond to the complaint and
notice of investigation, or to Order Nos.
13 and/or 15 to show cause why it
should not be found in default. On
January 3 and 9, 2012, respectively, the
Commission determined not to review
the IDs finding Nextar, the WinAccord
respondents, and Aiptek in default. The
Commission found that the statutory
requirements of section 337(g)(1)(A)–(E)
(19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)–(E)) were met
with respect to Aiptek, Nextar, and the
WinAccord respondents. Accordingly,
pursuant to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C.
1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule
210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)), the
Commission presumed the facts alleged
in the complaint to be true.
On March 8, 2012, complainant TPL
filed a declaration requesting immediate
relief against defaulting respondent
Aiptek under Commission rule
210.16(c)(1), 19 CFR 210.16(c)(1), which
it later withdrew.
On October 9, 2012, the ALJ issued
Order No. 47, directing Pandigital to
show cause why it should not be found
in default and in violation of section
337 pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17 because
it did not file a pre-hearing statement
and brief as required by the ALJ’s
Procedural Schedule. As of November 7,
2012, Pandigital had not responded to
Order No. 47 and the ALJ issued an ID
finding Pandigital in default and in
violation of section 337. He also
extended the target date in this
investigation to March 7, 2013.
On December 7, 2012, the
Commission determined not to review
the ID finding Pandigital in default and
in violation of section 337. The
Commission also requested public
briefing on remedy, the public interest,
and bonding with respect to Pandigital,
Aiptek, Nextar, and the WinAccord
respondents and requested that TPL
address certain issues related to remedy
and bonding. 77 FR 74220–21 (Dec. 13,
2012). On December 21, 2012, TPL
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2013 / Notices
submitted responsive briefing including
a proposed limited exclusion order
directed to the covered products of
Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, and the
WinAccord respondents and cease and
desist orders directed to each of the
defaulting respondents.
The Commission has determined that
the appropriate form of relief includes a
limited exclusion order prohibiting: (1)
The unlicensed entry of digital photo
frames and image display devices and
components thereof that infringe one or
more of claims 9, 11–12, and 14 of the
’443 patent, claims 25–26 and 28–29 of
the ’424 patent, or claims 1, 7, 11, 17,
19, and 21 of the ’549 patent, which are
manufactured abroad by or on behalf of,
or are imported by or on behalf of,
Pandigital or one of the WinAccord
respondents, or any of their affiliated
companies, parents, subsidiaries,
licensees, contractors, or other related
business entities, or their successors or
assigns; (2) the unlicensed entry of
digital photo frames and image display
devices and components thereof that
infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14
of the ’443 patent or claims 25–26 and
28–29 of the ’424 patent, which are
manufactured abroad by or on behalf of,
or are imported by or on behalf of,
Nextar or any of its affiliated companies,
parents, subsidiaries, licensees,
contractors, or other related business
entities, or its successors or assigns; and
(3) the unlicensed entry of digital photo
frames and image display devices and
components thereof that infringe one or
more of claims 9 and 11–12 of the ’443
patent or claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the
’424 patent, which are manufactured
abroad by or on behalf of, or are
imported by or on behalf of, Aiptek or
any of its affiliated companies, parents,
subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or
other related business entities, or its
successors or assigns. Appropriate relief
also includes cease and desist orders
prohibiting: (1) Pandigital or either of
the WinAccord respondents from
conducting any of the following
activities in the United States:
importing, selling, marketing,
advertising, distributing, offering for
sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for digital photo frames
and image display devices and
components thereof that infringe one or
more of claims 9, 11–12, and 14 of the
’443 patent, claims 25–26 and 28–29 of
the ’424 patent, or claims 1, 7, 11, 17,
19, and 21 of the ’549 patent; (2) Nextar
from conducting any of the following
activities in the United States:
importing, selling, marketing,
advertising, distributing, offering for
VerDate Mar<14>2013
15:16 Mar 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for digital photo frames
and image display devices and
components thereof that infringe one or
more of claims 9 and 14 of the ’443
patent or claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the
’424 patent; and (3) Aiptek from
conducting any of the following
activities in the United States:
importing, selling, marketing,
advertising, distributing, offering for
sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for digital photo frames
and image display devices and
components thereof that infringe one or
more of claims 9 and 11–12 of the ’443
patent or claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the
’424 patent.
The Commission has further
determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in sections 337(d),
(f), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f), and
(g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the
limited exclusion order or the cease and
desist orders. Finally, the Commission
has determined that a bond in the
amount of 100 percent of the entered
value of the covered products is
required to permit temporary
importation during the period of
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The Commission’s orders were
delivered to the President and to the
United States Trade Representative on
the day of their issuance.
The Commission has terminated this
investigation. The authority for the
Commission’s determination is
contained in section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1337), and in sections 210.16(c), 210.17,
210.41, and 210.50 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50).
Issued: March 12, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–06107 Filed 3–15–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–13–008]
Sunshine Act Meeting
United
States International Trade Commission.
TIME AND DATE: March 21, 2013 at 11
a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
STATUS:
16709
Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agendas for future meetings: none
2. Minutes
3. Ratification List
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–489 and
731–TA–1201 (Final) (Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks from China).
The Commission is currently
scheduled to transmit its
determinations and Commissioners’
opinions to the Secretary of
Commerce on or before April 4,
2013.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
Dated: March 14, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–06265 Filed 3–14–13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–666 (Modification
Proceeding)]
Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent
Lamp (‘‘CCFL’’) Inverter Circuits and
Products Containing Same;
Commission’s Determination To
Institute a Modification Proceeding;
Modification of the September 25, 2009
Consent Order; Termination of the
Proceeding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to institute
a modification proceeding, modify the
Commission’s September 25, 2009
Consent Order, and terminate the
modification proceeding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2737. The public version of the
complaint can be accessed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be
available for inspection during official
business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.)
in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16707-16709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-807]
Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and
Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and
Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has terminated the above-captioned investigation under
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and has issued a
limited
[[Page 16708]]
exclusion order directed against infringing products of the following
respondents previously found in default: Nextar Inc. (``Nextar'') of La
Verne, California; WinAccord Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan and WinAccord
U.S.A., Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, ``the WinAccord
respondents''); Aiptek International Inc. (``Aiptek'') of Hsinchu,
Taiwan; and Pandigital, Inc. (``Pandigital'') of Dublin, California
(collectively, ``the defaulting respondents''). The Commission has also
issued cease and desist orders directed against these defaulting
respondents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for inspection during official business hours
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202)
205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on September 27, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Technology
Properties Limited, LLC (``TPL'') of Cupertino, California. 76 FR
59737-38. The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into
the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of certain digital photo frames and
image display devices and components thereof by reason of infringement
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (``the '623 patent'');
7,162,549; 7,295,443; and 7,522,424. The complaint further alleged the
existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of
investigation named twenty respondents including Nextar; the WinAccord
respondents; Aiptek; Pandigital; Action Electronics Co., Ltd.
(``Action'') of Taoyuan County, Taiwan; Aluratek, Inc. (``Aluratek'')
of Tustin, California; Audiovox Corporation (``Audiovox'') of Happauge,
New York; CEIVA Logic, Inc. (``CEIVA'') of Burbank, California; Circus
World Displays Ltd. (``Circus'') of Niagra Falls, Canada; Coby
Electronics Corporation (``Coby'') of Lake Success, New York; Curtis
International, Ltd. (``Curtis'') of Ontario, Canada; Digital Spectrum
Solutions, Inc. (``Digital Spectrum'') of Irvine, California; Eastman
Kodak Company (``Eastman Kodak'') of Rochester, New York; Mustek
Systems, Inc. (``Mustek'') of Hsinchu Taiwan; Royal Consumer
Information Products, Inc. (``Royal Consumer'') of Somerset, New Jersey
and Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of America of
New York, New York (collectively, ``the Sony respondents''); Transcend
Information, Inc. (``Transcend'') of Taipei, Taiwan; and Viewsonic
Corporation (``Viewsonic'') of Walnut, California. The complaint and
notice of investigation were served on all respondents. See Notice of
Investigation, Certificate of Service (Sept. 22, 2011) (EDIS Document
459720). No Commission investigative attorney participated in the
investigation.
On November 10 and 30, 2011, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review initial determinations (``IDs'') issued by the
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') terminating the
investigation as to Coby and Aluratek based on settlement agreements.
On December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review an ID
terminating the investigation as to Circus based on a settlement
agreement. On January 25, 2012, the Commission determined not to review
an ID terminating the investigation as to Curtis based on a settlement
agreement. On February 10 and 23, 2012, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to Royal
Consumer and Viewsonic based on settlement agreements. On March 16,
2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the
investigation as to CEIVA based on a settlement agreement. On April 11,
2012, the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the
investigation as to Eastman Kodak and Mustek, respectively, based on
consent order stipulations. On May 24, 2012, the Commission determined
not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Audiovox based
on a settlement agreement. Also, on May 24 and 29, 2012, respectively,
the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the
investigation as to the '623 patent with respect to Pandigital, and
terminating Digital Spectrum, based on consent order stipulations. On
June 20, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID
terminating the investigation as to Action based on a consent order
stipulation. On July 26, 2012, the Commission determined not to review
an ID terminating the investigation as to Transcend based on a consent
order stipulation. On October 3, 2012, the Commission determined not to
review an ID terminating the investigation as to the Sony respondents
based on a consent order stipulation.
On December 6 and 22, 2011, respectively, the ALJ issued IDs
finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default,
pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, because these respondents did not respond to
the complaint and notice of investigation, or to Order Nos. 13 and/or
15 to show cause why it should not be found in default. On January 3
and 9, 2012, respectively, the Commission determined not to review the
IDs finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default.
The Commission found that the statutory requirements of section
337(g)(1)(A)-(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E)) were met with respect to
Aiptek, Nextar, and the WinAccord respondents. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule 210.16(c)
(19 CFR 210.16(c)), the Commission presumed the facts alleged in the
complaint to be true.
On March 8, 2012, complainant TPL filed a declaration requesting
immediate relief against defaulting respondent Aiptek under Commission
rule 210.16(c)(1), 19 CFR 210.16(c)(1), which it later withdrew.
On October 9, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 47, directing
Pandigital to show cause why it should not be found in default and in
violation of section 337 pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17 because it did not
file a pre-hearing statement and brief as required by the ALJ's
Procedural Schedule. As of November 7, 2012, Pandigital had not
responded to Order No. 47 and the ALJ issued an ID finding Pandigital
in default and in violation of section 337. He also extended the target
date in this investigation to March 7, 2013.
On December 7, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the ID
finding Pandigital in default and in violation of section 337. The
Commission also requested public briefing on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding with respect to Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, and
the WinAccord respondents and requested that TPL address certain issues
related to remedy and bonding. 77 FR 74220-21 (Dec. 13, 2012). On
December 21, 2012, TPL
[[Page 16709]]
submitted responsive briefing including a proposed limited exclusion
order directed to the covered products of Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar,
and the WinAccord respondents and cease and desist orders directed to
each of the defaulting respondents.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief
includes a limited exclusion order prohibiting: (1) The unlicensed
entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11-12, and 14 of the
'443 patent, claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, or claims 1, 7,
11, 17, 19, and 21 of the '549 patent, which are manufactured abroad by
or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Pandigital or one
of the WinAccord respondents, or any of their affiliated companies,
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related
business entities, or their successors or assigns; (2) the unlicensed
entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the '443 patent
or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, which are manufactured
abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Nextar
or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees,
contractors, or other related business entities, or its successors or
assigns; and (3) the unlicensed entry of digital photo frames and image
display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of
claims 9 and 11-12 of the '443 patent or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the
'424 patent, which are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are
imported by or on behalf of, Aiptek or any of its affiliated companies,
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related
business entities, or its successors or assigns. Appropriate relief
also includes cease and desist orders prohibiting: (1) Pandigital or
either of the WinAccord respondents from conducting any of the
following activities in the United States: importing, selling,
marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring
(except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors
for digital photo frames and image display devices and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11-12, and 14 of the
'443 patent, claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, or claims 1, 7,
11, 17, 19, and 21 of the '549 patent; (2) Nextar from conducting any
of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling,
marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring
(except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors
for digital photo frames and image display devices and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the '443 patent
or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent; and (3) Aiptek from
conducting any of the following activities in the United States:
importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for
sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for digital photo frames and image display devices and
components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 11-12 of
the '443 patent or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in sections 337(d), (f), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C.
1337(d), (f), and (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited
exclusion order or the cease and desist orders. Finally, the Commission
has determined that a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered
value of the covered products is required to permit temporary
importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C.
1337(j)). The Commission's orders were delivered to the President and
to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The Commission has terminated this investigation. The authority for
the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections
210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50).
Issued: March 12, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-06107 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
